Yes, say the Liberals. Oh, my, what delusional sense of history do the Liberals have? That only came to light because Mr. Leblanc from The Globe and Mail dug and dug into government information. He used a part of the Access to Information Act and asked for the documents between this date to that date from a certain department. Under Bill C-58, that would not be allowed anymore. Who told us that? The Information Commissioner told us that. She said that if the same request had come in after this bill becomes law, we would have never learned about the whole sponsorship scandal. We would have never learned that Liberals in that part of the country were padding their pockets with public money. People went to jail over this, a government fell over this, as it should have, because it was stealing. It was stealing money under the guise of some sponsorship program, and it was only because of access to information that we found this out.

The residential school survivors have been fighting with government for decades for the simple acknowledgement that they or their parents attended a certain residential school at which they were abused horrifically, and for which the Government of Canada was dragged, finally, to apologize for. That only came to light because of access to information. Government does not disclose these things. The Liberals say that they are going to self-disclose and that should be good. We heard from the Information Commissioner's office that complaints have been rising since its new disclosure policy.

We have also heard from the Information Commissioner's office that with these terms, if a request is deemed vexatious by the government, it can deny the request. What does that mean? It is vexatious to whom, to some department that has been badly handling public funds? Yes, I bet that information would look vexatious. The government is going to tell Canadians it is sorry, they cannot have the information they requested because it thinks it is vexatious. It is going to hurt its feelings, and someone might get fired for doing bad. We want to be able to shine light on these things, not go in the opposite direction.

The Information Commissioner asked for order-making powers, and the Liberals promised this. The Information Commissioner would have the ability to demand documents from government and not have government delay and deny. With the amendments in this bill, the commissioner was asked how this would affect order-making power. She said it would not be a true order-making power, and may in fact delay the process for Canadians even longer because they will end up in the courts more often.

Lastly, we asked the Information Commissioner, the watchdog, an officer of Parliament who works on behalf of all of us, if the government consulted with her and if it offered more in the way of a budget, because enforcing this is going to cost a lot more money due to going to court a lot more often. The answer was no.

Again, the Liberals are talking about how they like to consult, how they like to include, how they like to be collaborative. With every proposal we made to change this bill, to try to save this bill from itself, to help Liberals keep a Liberal promise, one of the hardest things to do in politics, they rejected every single one. They allowed the technical amendments from their side and changed a comma here and moved a period there. Congratulations.

However, the fundamental DNA of this bill is designed to make access to information more difficult for Canadians. That is not me talking, that is the Information Commissioner, aboriginal groups, and advocates across the political spectrum who say that things will get worse under this law.

This is the sense of entitlement. This is a hypocritical approach to politics that discourages Canadians so fundamentally. If Liberals are sincere about working with the opposition, they would amend the bill based on the evidence we heard, rather than their own world view, which will make it so much more difficult for Canadians to hold truth to power.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, the member is wrong. Things will not get worse. In fact, in a year from now, I suspect that the member across the way will regret many of the things he has said.

Let me give a specific example. The NDP has always fought proactive disclosure. That member in particular was one of the members who led the fight against proactive disclosure for members of Parliament. Now, today, in this legislation, we have proactive disclosure, including the release of ministerial mandate letters. The member across the way mocks that. What does a ministerial mandate letter do? It tells Canadians about the priorities of different departments.

What we hear from the New Democrats is, “Well, who cares about that?” Let me suggest to the member opposite that Canadians care. They genuinely care about what the Prime Minister establishes for priorities within the many different departments. Only the New Democrats would fight against proactive disclosure. Only the New Democrats would fight against having ministerial mandate letters made public.

My question for the members is, does he believe that Stephen Harper should have had his ministerial mandate letters made public, or does he believe in the old system where there was less transparency and less accountability?

Mr. Speaker, I was asked by a colleague if that was a speech or a yelling contest. I think my friend is participating in a yelling contest. At that, he could win; we have no doubt. I am going to grant him that. He can yell louder and longer than most people I have ever met.

With regard to ministerial mandate letters and bringing in electoral reform, where did that go? “We will return home delivery by the post office to Canadians.” That was in a mandate letter. It helped that it was public, and then they broke it, I suppose.

This is serious. My friend looks to make light of it, but this is serious. My friend says, “So what if we're making access to information harder according to the Information Commissioner? So what if first nations are going to have to struggle even harder than they have to gain access?” That is why, today, the Assembly of First Nations, a group to whom the Liberals swear such promise and fealty, are looking at an emergency resolution to reject this bill. It does not matter much to the member, as he smiles so nicely.

The Liberals have a problem. They do not actually want to have access to information. They do not want to tell us what the finance minister owns in his numbered companies. They do not want to tell us when and where they sell shares. The Liberals do not actually want it, but they want to pretend at it. They have all the words, but I fear that Canadians—

No conspiracy. This is in legislation. This is in the bill that the Liberals just introduced. The Prime Minister and Liberals say they would like to give less access to information to Canadians, and Canadians will learn the experience of trying to access information that belongs to them in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the best questions I have ever had. I do not even know where to start.

Let me add this, because I do not think we got to it. With regard to the notion of vexatious and bad faith, who determines it? The department holding the information gets to determine if a request coming from a Canadian is in bad faith. The department can deem that a request asking for information from its department is in bad faith or vexatious. It is not defined in the law. No, it is interpreted by the government that is holding the information.

On normal day-to-day information, this is not going to be a serious issue. However, when it is sensitive information, embarrassing information, information that the government does not want out, all it has to do is take out a big stamp in the department and slam down “vexatious” or “bad faith”, and then it is rejected.

The only power that the Information Commissioner has is to take the whole thing to court if Canadians complain. The government is already applying this bill, even though it has not passed Parliament. The Information Commissioner's office is already filing complaints on behalf of Canadians because they are not getting information already, and the bill has not passed. Let us imagine when this bill becomes law, which the Liberals, by the way and ironically, have shut down debate on.

There is no truer sense of irony from the Liberals that they are closing off, suffocating debate in Parliament—more than Stephen Harper did—on a bill that is talking about the need to provide access to information to Canadians. My goodness, the hubris on that side. When Canadians hear these stories and they go through the experience, time will tell for the government. It is breaking its solemn word to Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow my impassioned colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I wish I had the same level of anger. I should, but today I really come to this debate with absolute sadness at the missed opportunity before us in Bill C-58.

When the Liberals introduced this legislation, they called it in their press release “the most comprehensive reform of Access to Information in a generation”. It sure was not.

I want to talk about what the Civil Liberties Association has said, what first nations have said, what trade unions have said, what journalists have said, all of which has been to pan this effort as an appalling waste of time.

I could not do better than to quote my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who in turn quoted the Information Commissioner, who has the most expertise of anyone on the bill. She said has said it is “regressive”. She has said to Canadians that if the bill were not significantly amended, “I would much prefer to keep the status quo”, namely, the Stephen Harper version of access to information than the one before us. That must be so galling for Liberals to hear. Then we heard today in the House, “Oh, no, that was before the wonderful amendments we brought in, which have made it all better so we should not be concerned”, referring to all those people who had concerns.

They have not made it right. They have made cosmetic changes to minor parts of the bill that make no difference to the main event, which has always been the exceptions to the rule of disclosure, the exceptions that carve away the right that was given in the main section of the bill, and those exceptions were not touched.

In committee I introduced on behalf of the NDP a dozen or more amendments to the exceptions, and not one was accepted. There were 20 amendments in total, but in regard to the exceptions, there were about a dozen amendments that many activists have talked about. This is not radical stuff. The Information Commissioner told us to suggest those amendments, not to make the bill regressive, but to make it better. How many of those were accepted? Zero.

The government has the gall to stand here before Canadians and take credit for something that is such an absolute farce. I find it appalling that we are in this position.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity, indeed the honour, to stand with five chiefs from across this great country who do research on residential school settlements, on grievances involving specific claims, on land claims generally, including cut-off land claims. Every single one of them said they were not consulted and that this law would make things worse. I thought no relationship was more important to the Prime Minister than with first nations. One could have heard a pin drop in that press conference as one after another stood up to castigate the Liberal government for yet another broken promise.

This is not just another bill. This is what the courts have termed “quasi-constitutional” legislation, in this case dealing with the essential right to know in a democracy. If we do not know what is going on and cannot find out, we live in a totalitarian state.

Back in the 1980s, the government at the time finally introduced an access to information bill, and a generation later it has ossified. It is legislation that no longer does the trick. The government did not even have computers in active use back then, so clearly things needed to change, and yet the changes the current government has proposed involve things like getting access to ministers' mandate letters.

Moreover, now the government can tell us what we want to know under something called “proactive disclosure”. Far be it for me to criticize making more information available, but proactive disclosure will involve the government letting us know by what it puts on a website, as if that were somehow the same as a person making a request to the Prime Minister's Office for information, as was done during the sponsorship scandal when The Globe and Mail and Daniel Leblanc told Canadians about the abuses of their tax dollars. That is because they had the right to make a request and, finally, ATIP delivered.

The government therefore wants to conflate access to information and proactive disclosure, a doctrine that has been around for many years in most provinces and in the federal government. It has been put in a statute and we are supposed to think it is the most comprehensive reform of access to information in a generation. It is just absurd.

I care deeply about this. I did my graduate work on freedom of information. I drafted the B.C. legislation and the Yukon legislation. I know when Canadians are being hoodwinked, and they are being hoodwinked by the bill before us. I think it needs to be withdrawn, and we need to do it right for Canadians. The experts are unanimous that the bill is in dire need of reform because the bill basically only codifies existing practices.

British Columbia and most of the provinces have a very simple way of enabling an information commissioner to order the disclosure of information. After a few days, if the government does not choose to judicially review the order of the commissioner, it is the law, and the government shall disclose it. I invite members to look at the so-called order-making power in the bill to see if they can figure it out, because the Information Commission does not believe it to be anything like what the term “order-making powers” would suggest.

Interestingly, I believe that the only private member's bill the Prime Minister sponsored when he was in opposition was on reforming the access to information and privacy acts. On the Access to Information Act, one of the specific things he wanted to do was to make ministers' offices open, which is to say that one could make a request and the office should respond, and likewise the Prime Minster's Office.

I will say it again, the government is conflating proactive disclosure, namely what it wants to tell us, and the ability of any citizen to ask for information and have the Information Commissioner order it disclosed. That is how it works in my province of British Columbia, and it works very well. Most of the time, cases are settled. Ninety-some percent of cases over the decades have been resolved through mediation. This need not be expensive. It need not be convoluted.

However, the government has provided something like a camel invented by committee. A horse invented by committee is a camel, and the bill before us is a camel. What if people wanted to know, for example, about the Prime Minister's Christmas vacations or whether a minister's villa were held within a private company? Would they be able to ask for that information? Well, it would not be proactively disclosed, I do not believe, which, of course, is one of the crucial difficulties with the proposed legislation.

Canadians also need to know that the government has not abolished the $5 fee, which is a tollgate on citizens' right to access. How much does it cost to cash a cheque for $5? It is $55. This is our government in action, which is why Canadians are basically paying millions of dollars to deny information to other Canadians. There is no duty to document, as requested by the commissioner. The exemptions have not changed, as I indicated, and every academic and every researcher comes down hard on this legislation. We know we are in trouble when the Canadian Association of Research Libraries comes down hard on a bill like this.

I want to end by saying, would it not be nice if quasi-constitutional legislation involving privacy and our rights to information were somehow taken more seriously, that we had an opportunity to really engage in debate at committee and, as a generational change, to get it right? Unfortunately, the government is about to deprive us of that right. The Liberals have used time allocation to bring down the guillotine so that we will not have any more opportunity to discuss this quasi-constitutional legislation in this place. It is a travesty. It is appalling. Canadians deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate and thank all the organizations in my riding, Saint-Laurent, that provide support and are making such a difference in the lives of thousands of families every year. These organizations complement one another, together providing a variety of services that are essential to families in need. Many thanks go out to the Centre ABC de Saint-Laurent, CARI St-Laurent, the Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi, the Maison des familles, the Comité des organismes sociaux de Saint-Laurent, the Centre des femmes, and the many other organizations that work tirelessly in our beautiful riding, Saint-Laurent.

I will continue to work with those organizations to support their efforts and help the people of Saint-Laurent as best I can. They are giving the people of my region a real chance at a better future.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to talk about courage, commitment, love, and a Canadian living abroad who exemplifies all three. Vaden Earle has been caring for Widlene Alexis Earle, now 12 years old, since 2007, when her mother died tragically. Having crossed from Haiti to the Dominican Republic illegally as a very young child, Widlene is now stateless and faces a constant threat of deportation. Vaden has been working to navigate the maze of paperwork and international bureaucracy necessary to adopt Widlene and bring her here safely to Canada.

Their story has captured the hearts of many Canadians, who have written letters in support of Widlene and Vaden to MPs and officials, signed petitions, and donated their support and efforts.

Mr. Speaker, on November 10, parishioners from St. Monica's Roman Catholic Church hosted an evening of music and prayers to raise funds for a new, larger church building for the growing faith community at neighbouring St. Paul Roman Catholic Parish. The music provided by the youth choir, Psalm Ninety Eight music ministry, and Father Rob Galea, was both inspiring and edifying.

This event would not have been possible without the collaborative efforts of two communities united by a common goal. I want to thank everyone who helped organize this event and invited me to take part in the festivities.

I would also like to wish all my friends at the St. Paul and Saint Monica's parishes a very joyous and merry Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, as part of the 16 days of activism on violence against women and girls, I want to acknowledge the organizations and municipalities in our riding that are committed to ending domestic violence.

Women's shelters and women's centres have launched the municipalities united against domestic violence campaign.

I am proud to announce that the vast majority of municipalities in Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton are now allies. Nearly 1,000 people signed the petition against domestic violence, thanks to organizations such as the local AFEAS groups, COFEM, and Cercles de fermières.

It is hard to believe that domestic violence still exists. We must work together to put an end to all forms of violence. It is these types of commitments that make me proud to represent the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

Mr. Speaker, Pictou County lost its local music guru and Tragically Hip super fan Carlton Munroe after his battle with glioblastoma, the same illness that claimed the life of his music hero Gord Downie.

Carlton was a dedicated family man, a bright light on the east coast music scene, and a personal friend. From his time on our local radio station, he was unwavering in his commitment to our community and helping musicians in his work with the events department of the Town of New Glasgow and in his efforts to build our biggest music festival at home, the Riverfront Jubilee. While his presence on stage this year at the jubilee will certainly be missed, we know he will be with us in spirit.

I thank Taryn for sharing her husband with us, and Noah, Nate, and Layla for sharing their father with us.

The Prime Minister said recently that Canada is less of a country without Gord. I can say that Pictou County is a bit less of a community without Carlton.

I would like to say this to Carlton, “We're going to miss you, buddy. Say hi to Gord.”

Mr. Speaker, over 40% of the correctional officers on duty at the regional psychiatric centre in my riding in Saskatoon are on workers' compensation because they have been attacked by inmates. According to a story by reporter Dan Zakreski, officers at this Correctional Service Canada facility have been assaulted continually by inmates, who are spitting, biting, and stabbing officers with pens. Urine and feces have also been thrown.

The escalation in violence is due to a policy change in August to a practice called “administrative segregation”. As a result, violent inmates with a serious mental illness can no longer be separated from the general population. In the CBC article, union rep James Bloomfield said, “The inmates that are assaulting us are right in front of us the next day. There's no repercussions for them.”

I call upon the Minister of Public Safety to reverse this policy so that all CSC employees can work in an environment that is safe for them and the inmates they care for.

Mr. Speaker, the government has been unreserved in our condemnation of Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea. The report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, on the situation of human rights in Crimea, detailed grave human rights violations, including arbitrary arrests and detentions, enforced disappearances, ill-treatment, and torture.

We are deeply concerned by the arbitrary detentions and recent unwarranted searches of the homes of Crimean Tatars. Last week the Crimean Tatars lost one of their leading voices in opposing the illegal annexation of Crimea, Vedzhie Kashka. We honour the memory of Vedzhie Kashka, whose life's work was defending the interests of the Crimean Tatar people.

We call on Russia to respect its obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law and to release all political prisoners. We will continue to call for the protection of the rights of all communities in the Crimean peninsula, including the Crimean Tatar community

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in recognition of my father, Gaétan Serré, a former member of Parliament. My father was honoured by Huntington University with its distinguished award of excellence for his lifetime of dedication to serving his community and country.

I want to thank Dr. Kevin McCormick, president of Huntington University for this distinguished award and for announcing the creation of the Gaétan Serré scholarship, which will be awarded annually to a student who embodies my father's passion for community and public service. Growing up I saw first-hand how devoted my father was to the people and causes he served. He always put service before self and has inspired me to follow in his footsteps and work hard for our community.

I want to thank my mother Jeannine, who was married to my father for 51 wonderful years, my wife Lynn Loiselle, my sister Lynne, and Robert Gervais, as well as the grandchildren, Michel, Catherine, Marissa, Mélodie, and Mireille, who were by my side to celebrate the life of a great man who was fair and loving, a deacon, a father, and an amazing grandfather.

Mr. Speaker, on January 1, 2018 the people of Slovakia will celebrate 25 years of being an independent nation. The velvet revolution, which was a non-violent transition of power, marked Slovakia becoming an independent nation.

Slovakia has grown as a democratic nation with an economy that is strong and growing, while retaining and celebrating its natural beauty and cultural richness. It is a responsible and reliable partner, making strong contributions to the global community.

I want to thank the thousands of Slovak Canadians who have worked hard to make Canada a better place. This year, with the help of the excellent diplomatic team from the Embassy of the Slovak Republic to Canada, the Slovak Canadian community held a celebration of tradition that attracted nearly 6,000 participants.

As the chair of the Canada-Slovakia friendship group, and someone with strong Slovak roots, I would like to wish all Slovaks and Slovak Canadians the best on this historic anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill, Bill S-3amends the Indian Act to eliminate sex-based inequities in registration. Private member's billC-262 is an act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Truth and reconciliation is under way. Parliament is working in service of our aspirations for a revitalized Senate, the contributions of individual members of Parliament, and listening and acting with the indigenous voices of Canada.

In my riding we too are acting in this spirit. On the Sunshine Coast, John and Nancy Denham led 30 shíshálh Nation and non-indigenous peoples in a dialogue circle. Our time together was respectful and intense. The West Vancouver Memorial Library hosted “Honouring Reconciliation: Hearing the Truth” to a full house, led by the Squamish Nation.

These are important experiences for Canadians and shíshálh and Squamish nations, as truth and reconciliation enables us to reach our full potential.

Mr. Speaker, during the transatlantic slave trade tens of millions of African people were kidnapped, tortured, and murdered. The world committed to ensuring that we never again repeat these deplorable, abhorrent acts. That is why we were shocked and horrified to see the news from Libya of an active slave trade. The buying and selling of human beings in the harshest of conditions, and the brutality of evil intentions that have robbed innocent people of their hopes and dreams are a true manifestation of the breaking of the human spirit.

Canada condemns all forms of trafficking in persons everywhere, including the slave trade in Libya, as practices that have always been criminal. We support the efforts of the Libyan Government of National Accord and the United Nations call for an investigation.

Canada will continue its work to end human trafficking and bring those who prey on vulnerable people to justice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an organization that works to create a more equitable and sustainable world by eliminating world poverty and supporting equality. Now in its 60th year, Crossroads International sends Canadian volunteers to developing countries to strengthen women's rights and security while fostering economic development. This model of volunteer co-operation recognizes the partnership between Canadian volunteers and grassroots organizations in other areas of the world.

It is fitting that Crossroads International is here in Ottawa today as we mark International Volunteer Day, a day to celebrate the important role that we as Canadians contribute through in-kind donations both at home and abroad. Today, I encourage all Canadians to find from within the principles of volunteerism, selflessness, and kindness, and to give the gift of time.

Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago, in 1917, two ships collided in Halifax harbour. One, the SS Mont-Blanc, was laden with high explosives destined for the western front in France. It caused the largest human-made explosion the world had ever known. Four hundred acres of my hometown were erased from the map while shards of molten iron fell from the sky miles away. Two thousand people were killed and another 9,000 people were injured. Most of us know this as the story of the Halifax explosion.

However, there is another part of the story that we do not tell often enough. It is the part where our community came together after the explosion to rebuild our city. It is the story of our regeneration. In one famous photograph taken mere weeks after the explosion, amidst the devastation can be seen a poster nailed to the boarded-over shop windows. It reads, “We Shall Never Rebuild Halifax Unless Everybody Works.”

We plucky Haligonians did rebuild Halifax. A century later, there is no other place I would rather call home, raise my daughter, or represent in Canada's Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians depend on their pension to retire with dignity. Unfortunately, in Canada, when major corporations go bankrupt, they steal the money that workers have saved in order to pay rich CEOs, banks, and investors first, every time.

Today, we see that Sears employees are at risk of having their pensions stolen from them. Once again, Canada's inadequate bankruptcy laws are letting this company walk away from its pension obligations towards its employees. More than 3,000 employees in Canada, including about 100 in Sherbrooke, may find themselves penniless in their retirement.

Mr. Speaker, it would be unthinkable for your pension or the Prime Minister's pension to be taken away. Why, then, is the government doing nothing for our workers who are losing the pensions they worked so hard to save when it could simply change the law to protect them?

It is time for representatives elected by the people to make decisions for the people.

Mr. Speaker, mischief and theft related to firefighting equipment are serious offences that can cause danger to the lives of firefighters and the Canadians they protect. I have introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-365, to establish clear deterrents for these offences to protect firefighters, who are on guard 365 days a year. I am truly grateful for the growing support this bill continues to receive from across Canada: support from the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, from the International Association of Firefighters Canada, the Canadian Volunteer Fire Services Association, the Fire Prevention Officers Association of BC; and support from firefighters and Canadians across Canada.

We depend on our firefighters, so let us help them protect the equipment they depend on. Details on the bill and e-petition 1373 can be found on my website and on the House of Commons website. I invite all Canadians to support Canadian firefighters by signing e-petition 1373 to help move this bill forward through the process.